From one battlefield to another

Less than two years into the new millennium, Moslem terrorists attacked the United States on 9/11, murdering thousands of Americans and sending hundreds of thousands of military troops to wars that would last for years. Among those deployed was a Catholic military chaplain from Minnesota, who was called to active duty from the classroom; this priest was also the Scripture Expert for the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN) website.

Little did I realize at the time that there would be an ecclesiastical war awaiting me back home upon my return! Continuing my online work for EWTN late nights from a canvas tent in a deployed desert location, in temperatures that were 100 degrees hotter than back home in Minnesota, I had the following Q&A website exchange in my capacity as the EWTN Scripture Expert:

Question to EWTN:

Father Echert, just WHAT is going on in the Church? In the recently released announcement of our bishops they say that we can’t try to convert Jews to the Catholic Faith because of the Old Covenant and that Vatican II mandated this. Really! Well what if a Catholic said, “Hey forget Catholicism, I want to be Jewish!” Does it REALLY matter to be Catholic? If the likes of our bishops and Cardinal Kasper are correct then it really doesn’t. Have we lost our minds?

Answer by Fr. John Paul Echert:

From what I have read of the document, parts of it strike me as contrary to divine revelation and I predict that it will not be approved by the Vatican, or perhaps the bishops themselves. As I understand it, this draft was put together by a committee, and it does not have approval by the body of bishops. It is an embarrassment, lacks any teaching authority, and serves to reveal the thinking of some people who hold powerful positions in the national conference. If a document such as this gains approval, as it currently stands, I will seriously consider the prospect that we are moving into one of the signs of the end times, namely, apostasy.

While not intending it, my EWTN response took on a life of its own and it was quoted in the New York Times and America Magazine among others and in diocesan papers nationwide. It even appeared in the Remnant.

That response also cost me my tenured position at our seminary and Catholic university. When I returned from the desert and was released from active duty, I was not allowed back into the classroom. I was falsely accused of being “anti-Semitic” by a bishop and a rabbi but I refused to retract my statement. In the end the controversial document Reflections on Covenant and Mission was dumped, as was I. But divine providence rescued me to become pastor of churches at which we offer Tridentine Masses daily.

I stand by my statement to this day and if anything I am now even more convinced by the signs that we are approaching the end times—whether of the entire world or western civilization is your guess.

I write this because while Covenant and Mission was never approved by the U.S. bishops—as I had predicted—a document eerily similar in tone and content has just now been released by the Vatican itself, titled The Gifts of God are Irrevocable. This 10,000 word statement commemorates the 50th anniversary of Nostra Aetate, a Second Vatican Council document on the Relation of the Church with Non-Christian Religions.

As Louie Verrecchio correctly noted in his excellent recent article on this very topic, some dozen years ago I could not have imagined that the Vatican itself would ever approve a document of this sort. After all, at the time my statement was cited and supported by no less prominent individuals than William Buckley of The New York Times and priest theologian Cardinal Avery Dulles in America Magazine. It makes one wonder now even more than when originally asked, “Just WHAT is going on in the Church?”

I do not intend here to make a detailed examination of this most recent Vatican statement that is strikingly similar to the former USCCB document so I will limit myself to one observation; namely, like the once defunct document of a dozen years ago—though now resurrected on the USCCB website– it too fails to acknowledge the fundamental truth that the Old Covenant is no longer salvific for anyone, including modern day Jews. It follows, then, that Jews are as much in need of Christ and the Church as anyone else for salvation and we should, therefore, continue to evangelize the Jews for their own supernatural good.

Much is made in the title and the body of this document regarding a Pauline statement that “the gifts of God are irrevocable” to suggest that the Old Covenant remains salvific for modern day Jews. This is simply not the case, as is taught by Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The Apostle himself, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, says of the Old Covenant: “Now in saying a new [covenant], he hath made the former [covenant] old. And that which decayeth and growtheth old is near its end.” It is true that for the sake of the Patriarchs God has not abandoned Jews but they too need Christ and the Church to be saved.

As for taking a neutral or hands off approach to evangelizing Jews, this is simply incompatible with the divine mandate of Christ who commanded: “Go ye into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not, shall be condemned.” So as with Covenant and Mission so too for Irrevocable Gifts, I give them both a double-thumbs down.

But even beyond the obvious biblical and theological failures of Irrevocable Gifts, as Louie so clearly pointed out in his article, what this latest heterodox Vatican statement reveals is that the basis for the heterodoxy of this statement is not a post-conciliar hijacking of an otherwise sound council of the Church; rather, this statement was issued to honor the anniversary of a Vatican II document and bases itself in that Council. Of this fact there can really be no doubt, as stated explicitly in the preface of Irrevocable Gifts:

Fifty years ago, the declaration “Nostra aetate” of the Second Vatican Council was promulgated. Its fourth article presents the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people in a new theological framework. The following reflections aim at looking back with gratitude on all that has been achieved over the last decades in the Jewish–Catholic relationship, providing at the same time a new stimulus for the future. Stressing once again the unique status of this relationship within the wider ambit of interreligious dialogue, theological questions are further discussed, such as the relevance of revelation, the relationship between the Old and the New Covenant, the relationship between the universality of salvation in Jesus Christ and the affirmation that the covenant of God with Israel has never been revoked, and the Church’s mandate to evangelize in relation to Judaism. This document presents Catholic reflections on these questions, placing them in a theological context, in order that their significance may be deepened for members of both faith traditions.

For fifty years countless innocent, trusting Catholics have been led to believe that many or most of post-conciliar innovations were just that: after the Council and unintended by the Second Vatican Council. Under the present pontificate especially, however, it has become increasingly evident that it was the Council itself that was innovative and that the innovations of the past fifty years are the novel fruit of the Council and not merely unintended by-products. Remember, “By their fruits you shall know them!” So while this statement does modern Jews a grave disservice at least it may open more eyes about Vatican II.

But if truth be told, since charity begins at home, I am concerned more about the effect of this statement upon the Catholic faithful than upon those who do not believe in Christ or the Church. For this statement is yet one more means by which the faithful—and others—are misled into the heretical hope that there is salvation apart from Christ and outside of the one true Church.

Again, it is not the purpose of this brief guest reflection to elaborate upon the timeless teaching of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition in this matter but only to point out the probable outcome of such thinking. Suffice it to say that Irrevocable Gifts provides many with a choice: to continue down the Vatican II path of heterodoxy or to walk with eyes wide open. A dozen years ago my eyes were partially opened by Covenant and Mission; weeks ago the scales finally fell from my eyes, occasioned by Irrevocable Gifts.

Thank you Lord, for the gift of sight! And thank you, Louie, for the diligent work you do exposing the true nature of the fruits of the Council!

Latest Comments

Certainly not. The popes have consistently reaffirmed that Vatican Council II does not bear the mark of infallibility.
.
To be clear – in those instances when the Council restates that which had been previously taught infallibly, the teaching of course remains infallible, but not by virtue of Vatican II.
.
Therefore, anything whatsoever that VII taught that is at odds with that which was previously taught infallibly must be rejected. There are many examples (e.g., the proposition set forth in Unitatis Reditegratio that the communities of the heretics are “means of salvation.”)
.
Lastly, the Council documents are NOT binding upon the faithful. The question concerning the binding force of VII was asked during the Council itself by the Council Fathers. The answer is given in the “Nota Previa” found in Lumen Gentium. In brief, only those teachings which the Council explicitly declares as binding are indeed binding. Such declarations were made in the text a sum total of ZERO times. (That which was previously binding, of course, remains so.)
.
I hope this helps. I’m glad you’re here to ask questions. Please, ask with abandon. Our many knowledgeable commenters will no doubt be pleased to help you. God bless!

In addition to Louie’s meaty reply, I will add this: Ask your friend exactly *what* *teachings* of this council are, in fact, infallible – teachings of the council means teachings that this council defined, which did not previously exist.
–
What you’ll get, I predict, is a deer caught in the headlights to the sound of crickets. In my experience those who, to a man, profess this doctrine have never spent five seconds thinking about what it actually means. This goes for some very intelligent and knowledgeable neo-Catholics at that. Will they assert that Vatican II’s wishy-washy ecumenism is *binding upon the faithful*? Can they even *define* this teaching? Not likely and not likely. And so it goes, down the line, with whatever it is they might propose. (Note that in addition to being a new *teaching* – thus something specified formally – whatever’s proposed as such can clearly not contradict other, previously extant doctrines.)
–
There is no binding doctrine and no anathemas either, and in that regard this ecumenical council does indeed stand completely unique in the 20-century history of the Church – it’s an enigma and remaisn so no matter how things are spun.
–
So, the people who parrot this line aren’t thinking about what it means. Instead, they’re out to protect their version of the Church, in which it is not possible for the documents of an ecuenical council ratified by the supreme pontiff to be ambiguous, much less harmful to the faith. But such is the reality, and this reality is entirely conformable to what we have always believed of the Bride of Christ: She is Indefectible. She, Herself, does not lead any soul astray, precisely because these wishy-washy, vague, emotional feel-goody teachings were not binding, and cannot be binding, because they are not even really teachings at all.

Louie is not correct about Vatican II. Yes, it contains heresies and it was not Catholic. It was a false council. However, Antipope Paul VI indeed attempted to promulgate it infallibly and with magisterial authority. The post-Vatican II ‘popes’ (who are actually antipopes) repeatedly identified it as magisterial and binding. Watch this video all the way through, and inform yourself with the facts. It covers the matter thoroughly and carefully, and refutes the common objections made on this matter. There is a great deal of misinformation spread on this issue.

Antipope Paul VI also solemnly closed Vatican II on Dec. 8, 1965, by declaring, with his so-called “apostolic authority”, that everything established in the Council “is to be religiously observed by all the faithful.”

Benedict XVI also referred to Vatican II’s heretical teaching on ‘the Church’ as binding. There are many quotes like this.

Benedict XVI, Light of the World, 2010, pp. 94-96: “… Q. And not even a Pope can offer an alternative definition of a Church? A. No. He has no authority over that. The Second Vatican Council is binding on him.”

These facts, and others in the video, refute the false position on Vatican II that is promoted by the SSPX and similiar groups, and prove the sedevacantist position.

“Prove” the sede position – LOL! Will you guys ever give it a rest here? And now those charlatan “brothers” the Dimonds being promoted – a new low, maybe.
–
For the uninitiated here, see this post, and the comments, to see that the sede position is un-Catholic and untenable. Yes, it can look good on the surface – but that’s it.
–https://akacatholic.com/interview-salza-siscoe-unmask-sedevacantism/

Your ad hominem on the Dimonds is false, and it further indicates that you can’t address the facts I cited or those covered in the video. The facts disprove your position. If you had a clue, you would realize that the ‘canonization’ of the public idolater John Paul II, besides many other things, proves the sede position to those with eyes to see. In case you didn’t know, the Catholic Church doesn’t canonize people who spend their careers promoting false ecumenism, heresy and modernism (in addition to presiding over the worst sex scandal in history and many liturgical abominations). The man who ‘canonized’ him was not a true pope.

With regard to Salza and Siscoe, since you mentioned them, their material has been thoroughly discredited and refuted for anyone who actually follows the arguments. See the materials referenced below.

One of the reasons they’ve come out with a book is that they were so thoroughly refuted. They were desperate to regain some lost credibility by making a splash. It certainly is a bold move to defend the public apostate Jorge Bergoglio when he constantly teaches blatant heresies and even admits that his own teaching is perhaps heretical but that he doesn’t care.

People like Salza and Siscoe may still have some credibility in the eyes of people like you, who don’t actually know what’s going on and probably don’t even understand their claims, but not for those who do carefully follow the arguments, are honest, and have seen the materials below.

You probably don’t even know what their position is. Did you know that Salza and Siscoe hold that people publicly support abortion, women ‘priests’, gay ‘marriage’, deny Christ’s deity , or believe in anything at all, are to be considered Catholic, as long as that person is attached to a parish and claims to be Catholic? Yes, that’s their position because they hold that you must be officially declared or determined to be a heretic to be a heretic (and essentially no one is declared a heretic in the Vatican II ‘Church’). Their position, that all the raging modernists and heretics at Novus Ordo parishes who favor gay ‘marriage’, abortion, etc. are to be considered Catholic is NOT Catholic teaching, but contrary to it. The Catholic Church teaches that one must profess the true faith to be considered Catholic. They teach the opposite. Their position is contrary to the Church’s teaching. They have actually changed the definition of ‘heretic’. Their errors are manifold, and they also contradict themselves frequently. You should also be cautious before adopting the positions of an ex-Masonic officer, ex-32nd decree Freemason John Salza, with a history of apostasy and denial of Jesus Christ. See these materials:

Father Echert, it is so good to see you here on aka Catholic. Like Louie, you don’t mince words. You say what must be said in defense of our Catholic Church, as Christ established it. I always followed your responses on EWTN Q&A and was never disappointed. We need more courageous priests to take a stand and hold on to our wonderful Traditions especially the Latin Mass. God bless you. Hope to see you here often.

If there is a bishop out there today who is capable / worthy of wearing the shoes of St.
Athanasius please point him out to the Traditional faithful. We need to rally around a leader in these fateful days,

Thanks be to God for you, Fr. Echert. This story of your “clarity of vision” is encouraging. Each of us has his/her own “water-shed” moment. It is absolutely THRILLING to read part of yours.
Thank you for sharing your wisdom with us.
—–
And since it cannot be said too often, I repeat your last line, Father:
“And thank you, Louie, for the diligent work you do exposing the true nature of the fruits of the Council!”

Fr Echert, a Hearty Welcome to the Proest who Michael J Matt listens to on Sunday.
Meanwhile Louie, the Star of The Show on ChurchImpotent.com, Mr Voris, has an Affiliate called “The Marian Catholic”, hosted by one Christopher McCarthy, who regurgitates the same “Lies & Falsehoods”, as Michael Voris & “The Cheque Writer”/”Executive Producer.”

I have posted this in the past and feel its time for a repost, “We control the seminaries, the academic departments of theology, the catechetical and liturgical institutions, the publishing houses, the magazines that matter and the chanceries. Most of the bishops are now on our side and those that aren’t have been neutralized. Anybody who wants a future in the hierarchy or the Catholic academy has no choice but to co-operate.” ― Fr. Hans Küng, expert theological advisor to members of the Second Vatican Council. Fr. Hans Küng ,”worthy” recipient of the Freemasons’ lifetime achievement award

And the evil enemies of the Church did not have control of the FFI which was growing in vocations, conversions, and had its seminary and publishing house – that is why it had to be eliminated or “neutralised” to use the arch heretic’s term.

The book, Solving 911: The Deception That Changed the World, shows it wasn’t Moslem terrorists who attacked the United States on 9/11. The five second free fall of un-hit 47-story building WTC-7 exposes the government/media narrative as patently false. For reference, see:

Moslem terrorists may have been used but it was run by those with control of the military, and other agencies and were able to control the narrative. What is obvious from hundreds of facts, including those relating to the explosive freefall collapse of the three WTC buildings is that it could not have happened from beginning to end according to the absurd official narrative. Many people have thrown light on what had to have happened in respect of various things, such as the flights, the radar, the disappearance of planes, the buildings, etc., and the truth or most of it will eventually come out but it usually happens a very long time after the fact, when those in power think it can no longer affect their control of the people. There was not much reaction to the uncovering of the intelligence agency running of the 1993 bombing.

“I am concerned more about the effect of this statement upon the Catholic faithful…”
Fr. Echert, in my mind’s eye the constant references to the misleading statements of VII by those with authority in the Church seem to have the effect of both enervating spiritual combativeness of the faithful and to undermine their morality. They also embolden the Church’s traditional enemies. It’s as though the modernists in the Church long to see Catholics, especially cradle Catholics, experience the spiritual and material spoliation of the awe-struck, drooling Egyptians when Moses and the Hebrews were allowed to ransack their property prior to the latter leaving Egypt. Only now it has the euphemistic name of social justice.
With the dawning of the European demographic winter, we are witnessing the dusk of Western civilization. St. Jerome has nothing on us in this regard.

“For fifty years countless innocent, trusting Catholics have been led to believe that many or most of post-conciliar innovations were just that: after the Council and unintended by the Second Vatican Council. Under the present pontificate especially, however, it has become increasingly evident that it was the Council itself that was innovative and that the innovations of the past fifty years are the novel fruit of the Council and not merely unintended by-products. Remember, “By their fruits you shall know them!” So while this statement does modern Jews a grave disservice at least it may open more eyes about Vatican II.”

Thats the truth. The heretical, evil statement also defies and mocks God who became Incarnate, suffered the Passion, died and rose for the salvation of all men, firstly the Jews. It does a grave disservice to all the Faithful and to people generally who may be misled into believing that being baptised and adhering faithfully to the One True Holy and Apostolic Faith is not necessary for salvation.

Why aren’t all commenters either leaving the Novus Ordo or puking in the pews as a protest?
–
Because blokes in cassocks bend their knees to belial as a firm ‘up yours’ to Christ, however culturally acceptable.

PS. It has gone beyond the excuse of useful idiots. There is no excuse for mocking Christ with your Novus Ordo novelties, not that there ever was. But an idiots’ line has been crossed and if belial’s stalwarts refuse to acknowledge it, Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy.

You, sir, are a fine example of martyrdom in its various forms; a fine example for us all who live our Faith comfortably without much sacrifice. Happiness lies at the end of that road. I dedicate myself to being ready, daily, to give up everything for His sake.

Sorrow and woe is at the end of the comfortable road trod by those who purvey this heretical error from their comfortable perch of Vatican honor.

At time stamp about 22:36 you can see Dachau “shower” rooms that have doors with dog-down latches and rubber gaskets. Seems kind of strange no? I’ve never in my life seen a shower room like those, can you explain it? Explain the ventilation pipes and air valves, cremation ovens still with bodies in them and tins of poison too while you’re at it.

At time stamp about 33:41 you can watch the bulldozers pushing emaciated bodies of Nazi prisoners into graves, and well fed captured German guards, men and women, being forced to bury the bodies too. Those starved bodies are not the result of “Allied bombing” you can see the bruises from beatings and the gunshot wounds through the heads.

You quote books like Synagogue Rising which is full of factual errors. The evidence for the Holocaust is overwhelming, try talking to the soldiers who were there or reading their experiences.

You people are sick and you leave a stench around traditional Catholics with your denials.

Michael, thank you very much for picking up this sword here. Yes, the holocaust deniers are nothing but nutty. Yet, the Jewish religion is now a false religion; their covenant is no longer salvific and they battle against the Savior as a people, in general. However, it is still morally wrong to murder them – OBVIOUSLY!
–
It’s not that the deniers really think the holocaust didn’t happen – what they want, instead, is to remove any sympathy for the Jewish people because of it.
–
Of course, according the Talmudic religion based on the Old Covenant status equal to the one, true Faith is false, objectively, and those who do so based on collective guilt from the Holocaust are weak men and weak thinkers, stuck in the modern nonsense of conflating the objective and the subjective and much more. That has nothing to do with the issue.
–
One of Archbishop Lefebvre’s own parents died in a Nazi camp. He never gave this sort of nuttery the time of day, and neither should we. People who believe this idiocy display a lack of rationality so severe it may be a psychological illness.
–
Thank you again and God bless.

Tell me “Catholic Thinker” who appointed you the judge of the mental state of “holocaust deniers”?

What I want is the truth about the talmudic jews and their nefarious plans revealed.They are,since they rejected CHRIST and had him crucified,the chosen of satan.They are at war with our LORD!Remember what JESUS said about the devil? ” A liar and murderer from the beginning” So no I am not going to be sympathetic toward the jews.After all like father like sons and daughters.But I never advocate resorting to their tactics, only following our LORD!

No “Catholic Thinker” it’s not those who reject the holohoax,which is exactly what the hard evidence says “the holocaust” is,but those who have swallowed this judaic/communist propaganda who are irrational.

Your childish post proves my point: Your irrational rejection of the facts of the holocaust is driven by an emotional reaction against the Talmudic religion – which is, indeed, false. Or so it would seem (your reaction, that is).
–
Have a great night, Frank.

There are no “facts of the holocaust” because the “holocaust” scenario is unsupported by facts.There is nothing rational about believing a lie.I am driven by a desire to know the truth.

A Critical ThinkerJanuary 10, 2016

Frank, my grandpa faught in world war two as a tank captain, should have been killed many times, prayed the rosary every day, and was an honest man. He witnessed a death camp. In fact the Nazis murdered all of the Jews and others before they could liberate it. The dead bodies were stick figures just like you see in video tapes. He saw it with his own eyes. There are thousands of other testimonies like this, both personal experiance and public factual evidance for the holocaust. Furthermore, i am going to have to disagree with A Catholic Thinker on one point, you are not being childish, but rather VERY uncharatable to say that you will not have sympathy for the jews. Christ had sympathy for those who killed Him.

Ps. In the learned elders of zion it talks about how they (the elite satanic/masonic “jews”) are willing to sacrifice their own to get their New World Order. In other words the holocaust is certaintly used to get things like the State of Irael, however it can only be used so affectively because it really did happen.

FrankJanuary 10, 2016

I have no sympathy for the jews anti- christ, jewish supremacist belief system. Of course I want them to convert and be saved. JESUS died for them also.

I never said no jews were killed by the nazi’s, only that hard evidence for a nazi plan to exterminate jews or that the nazi’s carried anything like it out is seriously lacking, as is basic common sense.

FrankJanuary 9, 2016

The truth is exactly what any Traditional Catholic is after. After all GOD is TRUTH. The truth is that six million jews were not killed by the nazi’s. The hard evidence doesn’t lie. As it was pointed out by john6, read Hugh Akin’s “Synagogue Rising” and if you still believe in the holohoax and any of the other jewish lies after that, then may GOD have Mercy on you.

Sorry we have to have this conversation but the prisoner/ doctor who performed autopsies Dr Franz Blaha who was actually there testified differently on January 11, 1946 – [Trial of the Major War Criminals, Proceedings Vol. 5, Nuremburg, 1947]

“12. Many executions by gas or shooting or injections took place right in the camp. The gas chamber was completed in 1944, and I was called by Dr. Rascher to examine the first victims. Of the eight or nine persons in the chamber there were three still alive, and the remainder appeared to be dead. Their eyes were red, and their faces were swollen. Many prisoners were later killed in this way. Afterwards they were removed to the crematorium where I had to examine their teeth for gold.”

I deny the twentieth century definition of the Jewish “Holocaust” as a religious and liturgical act.
Pope St. Pius X wrote in Question 80 of his elegant catechism:
“Le principale figure del Redentore nell’Antico Testamento sono l’innocente Abele, il sommo sacerdote Melchisedecco, il sacrificio d’Isacco, Giuseppe venduto dai fratelli, il profeta Giona, l’agnello pasquale, e il serpente di bronzo innalzato da Mose’ nel deserto.” (Trans: The principal figures (or types) of the Redeemer in the Old Testament are the innocent Abel, the high priest Melchizedek, the sacrifice of Isaac, Joseph sold by his brothers, the prophet Jonah, the paschal lamb, and the bronze serpent raised by Moses in the desert.)
The murder of the innocent Abel whose sacrifices were respected by the Lord resulted in his blood crying to the Lord from the earth. (Genesis 4:10) I submit Abel’s was a true holocaust both because his sacrifices were respected by the Lord and his blood cried to the Lord from the earth.
The passion of Christ, the True, Infinite and Eternal Redeemer, is liturgically replete, and this real, actual and powerful liturgy of that passion inexorably drew in all the players involved, unwittingly, from the cowardly Pontius Pilate who washed his hands before the Pharisees and crowd, to the guilty crowd and Pharisees who shouted back, “His blood be upon us and our children” (Matthew 27:25). At each sacrifice of the Mass our priests “re-enact” this true Holocaust, as do the faithful and the priest in persona Christi in the confessional when Christ’s blood washes over the forgiven sinner. This is a true Holocaust.
On the other hand the Nazis murder of the Jews during WWII was a demonic and diabolical act of evil, and, I submit — ever subject to correction by the Church — was murder and contrary to the Commandment of God, but it had nothing redemptive about it in the liturgical sense.
The matter of numbers is a red herring. The real matter is whether or not the murders of the Jews by the Nazis were universally redemptive. And again, I submit, with grave caution, that it was not.

I have re-read Father Echert’s very fine contribution to this blog and do not see where he mentioned the holocaust. Maybe, staying on topic is a good idea. Father Echert made it perfectly clear that the mission of the Catholic Church is conversion for ALL who do not believe in Our Lord as Savior and Redeemer.—and that,of course, includes the Jews. The post-conciliar Church has lost its compass. Let us not lose ours.

I think it’s apparent that there are no folks other than the sedevacantists and holocaust deniers that wish to see those subjects brought up here again & again. (Of course, a case such as Louie’s debunking sedevacantism post would be a different matter.)

He was responding to comments in a previous article, yes….and he could have responded in THAT article instead of re-routing this one. Now personally, I dont care that he re-routed it….stuff like that doesnt bother me like it seems to bother others…but it was him, and not the “sedevacantists and holocaust deniers” who did.

salvemurJanuary 10, 2016

What else would you like to accuse ‘sedevacantists’ of? Did you realise Bp Williamson is not a sedevacantist. In fact he promulgates the sort of mish-mash antichristism that is par for the Novus Ordo Course.
–
The longer people persist in their belief in error, the more likely it is they will be ‘given up’ to its ‘operation’.
–
What a sad prediction if it is true that people’s persistance in ignorance becomes obstinate.
–http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/Christ%20the%20King%20of%20the%20Jews%20-%20Bp%20Sanborn.mp3

Whatever is your point, Ms. Salvemur? You’ve been here posting sedevacantist links like crazy for the past year or more to virtually every post. Yes, indeed, you’ve also (especially of late, it seems) posted some from non-sede sources, but, surely, you acknowledge the above is true?
–
I’m well aware that +Williamson is not a sede. He has long possessed a first-rate intellect, and great understanding of the true faith. I lament his fallout with the Society that reared him. I believe it due to his own sins, but that is no matter for the present time & place.

That should be ‘never hide the truth’. If faith let the tidal waves of faithlessness gathering into the force of the great apostasy tsunami then hell would have won – impossible.

Ever mindfulJanuary 10, 2016

“….the fundamental truth that the Old Covenant is no longer salvific for anyone, including modern day Jews. It follows, then, that Jews are as much in need of Christ and the Church as anyone else for salvation and we should, therefore, continue to evangelize the Jews for their own supernatural good”

Fr Echert
————————-

————————-
The New Approach

On the day of Pope John Paul II’s death, I received a phone call from a young lady in New Zealand, a friend of the family. She presently works in a situation where she interacts with Muslims and Hindus. When she tells these non-Catholics, with gentleness and charity, they must convert to the one true Catholic Church to save their souls, the Muslims and Hindus laugh at her. “Your Pope doesn’t believe that”, they cackle, referring to John Paul II, “Your Pope doesn’t teach that. Your Pope’s interfaith actions don’t convey that. Your Pope prays with the Dalai Lama and with Hindus. Your Pope visits mosques and kisses the Koran. You are out-of-step with your own Pope. Why should we listen to you?” Two Catholic young men of my acquaintance, debating with a Protestant Minister, were likewise laughed to scorn when they in-formed the Protestant he must become Catholic to be saved. “What?”, said the Protestant, “You obviously don’t read the writings of your own Pope. He prays with Protestants. He praises Martin Luther as a man of ‘deep religiousness’. He calls Protestants ‘disciples of Christ’. He never says it is necessary to become Catholic for salvation.”

The day after Pope John Paul II’s death, Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League issued a press release praising the departed Pontiff for his relations with the Jewish people. Foxman wrote of John Paul, “Most importantly, the Pope rejected the destructive concept of supersessionism and has recognized the special relationship between Christianity and the Jewish people, while sharing his understanding of Judaism as a living heritage, of the permanent validity of God’s covenant with the Jewish people”

Pope John Paul II and Supersessionism

Pope John Paul II’s new teaching regarding present-day Judaism bears this out dramatically. It is one of the clearest illustrations of John Paul II’s discontinuity with the consistent teaching of his predecessors from the time of Christ. Today’s Jews celebrate John Paul II as they are fully aware of the drastic change in doctrine that he attempted to forge. Those who resist this new teaching are denounced as anti-semitic,[26] as unfaithful to Vatican II, or as one web-page snarled, as “extreme supersessionists”.

At first glance, it would seem preposterous to suggest that Pope John Paul II rejected the truth that the New Covenant superseded the Old Covenant. It is unthinkable that a Pope should deny a fundamental truth found so clearly in Scripture and Catholic doctrine.

On the subject of the absolute necessity of the Catholic Faith for salvation, there is, first of all, the Athanasian Creed, which begins: “Whoever wishes to be saved must, first of all, hold the Catholic faith, which, unless a man shall have held it whole and inviolate, he will most certainly perish forever.” This is not only a Creed of the Catholic Church that one must believe to be Catholic, but the Athanasian Creed was also part of the Church’s public liturgy. Before Vat-can II, it was recited at the Office of Prime on Trinity Sunday.

No Pope has the authority to imply that this solemn Catholic Creed has suddenly expired. As for the doctrine “Out-side the Church there is no salvation,” it has been three times defined by the Catholic Church. The most explicit and forceful of these three ex cathedra pronouncements is from the Council of Florence under Pope Eugene IV. Here the Church declared infallibly: “The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels,’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

This truth is taught repeatedly by the Popes, Saints and holy Doctors throughout the centuries. There is no deviation from one Pope to the next. It is one unchanging doctrine taught from Apostolic times. In fact, according the perennial teaching of the Church, the dogmatic First Vatican Council, and the Oath Against Modernism, a Pope is not allowed to change any of the doctrines of the Church, since the they are not his to change.

Nor is it possible for a Pope to change an objective truth divinely revealed by God. Nor is a Pope allowed to explain doctrine in a manner differently from what the Church always held, but must teach doctrine, to use the words of Vatican I and of the Oath Against Modernism, “in the same sense and in the same explanation.”

For a Catholic to do otherwise is to betray the Catholic Faith, and for a Pope to do otherwise is to betray his Papal Office. For nearly 2000 years, the Popes taught the doctrine “outside the Church there is no salvation” faithfully, as they knew it to be a truth received from Christ and the Apostles. One of the many 20th Century examples of the continuity of this teaching is found in The Catechism of Pope Saint Pius X. Here we read, “Outside the true Church are: Infidels, Jews, heretics, apostates, schismatics and excommunicated persons.” It states further, “No one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.”

The New Covenant Supersedes the Old

Now if the doctrine of the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation is clear, Catholic doctrine regarding the necessity of Jews to covert to Christ’s one true Church for salvation is even more exact. The New Testament abounds with such teaching, and the Catholic Church has taught it since Saint Peter’s first sermon on Pentecost morning. It is a teaching that comes directly from the lips of Our Lord. Our Lord Jesus Christ told the Jews: “If you do not believe that I am He [the Messiah], you will die in your sins.” (John 8:24)

Elsewhere He said to the Jews, “You search the Scripture because in them you think you have life everlasting. And it is they that bear witness to Me, yet you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.” (John 5:39-40)

Saint John, faithful to Our Lord’s teaching, says likewise, “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ. He is Antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2: 22)

Saint Peter, at his first sermon on Pentecost morning, publicly told the Jews who had assembled to hear him speak, that they must be baptized and become members of Christ’s true ecclesia for salvation. (Acts Chapter 2)

He did not tell them they had their own workable covenant independent from Christ. Commenting on this Scriptural text, the eminent America theologian, Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, pointed out that Saint Peter did not direct his words to men of no religion at all. Saint Peter, the first Pope, directed his words to pious Jews who had traveled from various parts of the world to attend the religious feasts at Jerusalem. Nonetheless, Saint Peter told these well-meaning Jews that the religion of the Old Covenant would not save them, but they must enter the New Covenant forged by the Blood of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church.

Sacred Scripture likewise teaches that the Old Covenant is superseded by the New. Saint Paul declares explicitly that Our Lord’s New Covenant “has made obsolete the former one,” that is, made obsolete the old Judaic Covenant. (Heb. 8:13)

No Pope has the authority to reject this Scriptural truth, as the Word of God is infallible. The Catholic Church throughout the centuries has been faithful to this truth. The doctrine of the supersession of the Old Testament by the New is a universal and perpetual doctrine of the Catholic Church. It is a defined article of the Catholic Faith that Catholics must believe.

The solemn Profession of Faith of the Ecumenical Council of Florence under Pope Eugene IV, says the following: “The sacrosanct Roman Church … firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after Our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; … All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it (the Roman Church) declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.”

It is clear then that no Pope could trample under foot this Scriptural and Dogmatic truth if he wished to be true to the Catholic Faith, and to the Papal Office. Yet at the time of Pope John Paul II’s death, the world’s media buzzed with claims that John Paul II had rejected this basic doctrine; that the doctrine no longer applies. Here are but a few examples:

Abraham Foxman from the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, as mentioned, celebrated Pope John Paul II as the man who “rejected the destructive concept of supersessionism,” that is, rejected the Catholic truth that the New Covenant of Jesus Christ superseded and made obsolete the Old Judaic Covenant.

The Jerusalem Post headlined its tribute, “What Will Follow the Best Pope the Jews Ever Had?”, and likewise lauded John Paul for rejecting supersessionism.

Sergio Itzhak Minerbi, Israel’s former Ambassador to the Ivory Coast, Belgium, praised John Paul’s new approach to Judaism. Though Minerbi criticized the Pope’s alleged attempts to “Christianize the Holocaust,” he nonetheless wrote the following accolade: “For centuries, the Church has claimed to be the ‘true Israel’, thus substituting the Jewish religion. It is therefore important that, in a meeting with the Jewish community in Mainz on 17 November 1980, the Pope announced his respect for ‘the people of God, of the Old Covenant, which has never been revoked by God’.”

The Boston Globe likewise eulogized that John Paul’s “outreach to the Jewish people” was “remarkable”, ad-ding that “He spoke of a special relationship between the Jews and the Church and insisted that the Old Covenant had never been revoked. His words put forth possibilities for theologians that are yet to be fully explored.”

The day after the Pope’s death, Father David Marie a Jaeger said, “public opinion polls published towards the end of his [John Paul’s] 2000 pilgrimage to the Holy Land” indicated that “a great majority of Israelis who were interviewed declared John Paul II their favorite candidate for Chief Rabbi of Israel!”

It is a woeful day for the Catholic Church when the Vicar of Christ is favored for the post of Chief Rabbi — and of Israel, of all places. The Israelis would never have heaped such praise on John Paul II — would never have considered John Paul as one of their own — had he reinforced the teaching of Saint Peter, Saint Paul and the Council of Florence on the supersession of the Old Covenant with the New.
Sacred Doctrine Inverted

But is it true? Did Pope John Paul II actually say these things? Catholic Family News readers will recognize these as rhetorical questions, since tragically, the answer is yes. In what appears to be an attempt to make “explicit” what was “implicit” in the Council Document Nostra Aetate,[38] Pope John Paul II said the following in a speech to a Jewish Community in Mainz, Germany on November 17, 1980: “The first dimension of this dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God, and that of the New Covenant, is at the same time a dialogue within our Church, that is to say, between the first and second part of her Bible … Jews and Christians, as children of Abraham, are called to be a blessing to the world. By committing themselves together for peace and justice among all men and peoples.”

This statement of the Pope, in fact, is now quoted in modern Church documents to reinforce the new, post-Conciliar teaching against “supersessionism”. In 1985, the Vatican issued its Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis of the Roman Catholic Church.

The document’s introduction bids the reader to take “special note” of Paragraph 3 “which speaks about Judaism as a present reality and not only as a historical (and thus superseded) reality.” When we turn to Paragraph 3, we see that the Notes quotes the above speech where John Paul speaks of “the people of God of the Old Covenant” which has “not been revoked.”

Far from claiming that the Notes misinterpreted his words, John Paul spoke of his unqualified support of the document. On October 28, 1985, John Paul II said “[The] Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis of the Roman Catholic Church” is “proof of the Holy See’s continued interest in and commitment to this renewed relationship between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people,” and that the Notes “will greatly help toward freeing our catechetical and religious teaching of a negative or inaccurate presentation of Jews and Judaism in the context of the Catholic Faith”.

Thus it is demonstrable that what the Jews say of John Paul II is true; the words they quote from John Paul II are found in Vatican documents with John Paul II’s approval. Yet we know from Saint Peter’s sermon on the first Pentecost, that the Old Covenant is not still in force, not acceptable to God, not capable of providing salvation. We know from the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ that those who will not accept Him will die in their sins.

We know from Saint John’s Epistle that he who denies that Jesus is the Christ, is anti-Christ. We know from Saint Paul’s Letter to the Hebrews that the New Covenant has made obsolete the Old. And we know from the infallible Council of Florence that the Old Covenant ceasedwith the establishment of the New Covenant by Jesus Christ.

We know, then, that Pope John Paul’s rejection of supersessionism is an error that must be neither embraced nor applauded. Catholics have a duty to resist Pope John Paul II’s new teaching, as it defies Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. It leaves these non-Catholics in the darkness of their false religion and thus deprives them of sanctifying grace.

It imperils the eternal destiny of countless souls. In resisting these novel teachings, we are only following the instruction given by Pope Innocent III who taught that if a Pope departs from the universal teaching and customs of the Church,“ he need not be followed”.
Saint Robert Bellarmine adds that he must also be resisted.

Santo Subito

Two weeks before Pope John Paul II’s double beatification of Popes Pius IX and John XXIII, the progressivist Commonweal journal observed: “The splendid absurdity of the coming event can be grasped when we recognize that John XXIII and John Paul II would both have been condemned for their ideas and their words had they expressed them when Pius IX was in power.”

Pope John Paul II’s commitment to the liberal reforms of the Second Vatican Council are precisely what would have earned his condemnation under Blessed Pius IX. Pope John Paul II’s pontificate effectively pitted today’s Catholics against the teachings of his predecessors. Very few in the media recognized this, and those who did viewed it as praiseworthy. One of the few was James Carroll, no friend of the Catholic Church.

Nonetheless, his recent piece in Time accurately dispelled the myth of Pope John Paul II’s conservativsm: “This may be what you think: John Paul II was the conservative Pope. His pontificate was marked by a resurgent Roman Catholic traditionalism, setting the Church against liberalizing forces of all kinds. John Paul II is remembered above all for shoring up structures of the past. “This is wrong. John Paul II boldly presided over the maturing of political and theological revolutions in Catholicism. Perhaps despite himself, he was a Pope of change, accomplishing two radical shifts — one in the Church’s attitude toward war and the other in its relationship to the Jewish people. Taken together, those represent the most significant change in Church history, and they lay the groundwork for future changes that could well go beyond what this Pope foresaw or even wanted.

In each case, John Paul II brought to completion a movement that was begun by his predecessors John XXIII and Paul VI, the Popes of the Second Vatican Council.”[46] James Carroll sees Pope John Paul II’s continuing revolution as a “maturing” of Catholic thought. Pope Saint Pius X would have seen it for what it was: Modernism in action.

Likewise, Pope Pius XII would have recognized John Paul II as one of the progressivist theologians he warned against in Humani Generis “who reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.”

Yet none of these facts seem to count in the post-Conciliar age of sentiment, as was evident in Pope John Paul II’s funeral Mass. Here churchmen and laity called for the instant canonization (Santo Subito!) of the Polish Pontiff. Yet the effects of John Paul II’s papacy have been anything but edifying. Columnist Joe Sobran noted: “… orthodox Catholics ask whether his papacy has been a success. He seems to have retained a naive Sixties faith in ecumenical ‘dialogue,’ however fruitless it turned out to be.

The maladies that have infected the Church since the Second Vatican Council (at which he was an enthusiastic participant) haven’t been remedied — liturgical corruption, low Mass attendance, poor Catholic education, errant bishops, heretical theologians. “And one of the worst scandals in Catholic history erupted on his watch: the revelation that homosexual priests had been abusing boys. This was a natural result of the homosexual domination of American (and possibly other) Catholic seminaries that had been increasing since the 1960s, well before John Paul’s papacy; but he seemed to have had no clue that it was going on and hardly to have believed it when he learned. That doesn’t speak well for his supervision.”

All that Glitters is Not Gold

Pope John Paul II has met his Judge, Who according to Pope Saint Pius X, will demand a strict account of his Papal stewardship.The purpose of this article is not to judge John Paul’s soul, as that is God’s prerogative alone.

Catholics are nonetheless called upon to appraise the words and actions of his pontificate by the only measuring rod that counts: the infallible and immutable Catholic Faith of all time. Against this measure, Pope John Paul II is found wanting, and nothing is gained by pretending otherwise.

We pray for his soul, but we do not follow his progressivist lead. He was a Pope who gave much bad example. As Catholics, we have the duty to avoid shallow emotion and sentiment.

We do not adulate a Pope who tells members of false religions what they want to hear; that they will find salvation by clinging to false creeds. This fabrication is the glitter of earth, not the glory of God. It is the foolishness of the world, not the wisdom of a saint. It paves the way for the eternal damnation of countless souls.

Our first duty, rather, is to adhere to the Athanasian Creed: “Whoever wishes to be saved must, first of all, hold the Catholic Faith, which, unless a man shall have held it whole and inviolate, he will most certainly perish forever.” We must pray that a future Pope will risk the unpopularity and instruct Catholics once again in this central truth of our Faith. A good starting point would be to incorporate into a future encyclical the gentle but firm words of the eminent theologian, Father Francis Connell: “Far from minimizing the exclusiveness of the Catholic religion, our people should be instructed unhesitatingly, whenever the occasion offers, and to let non-Catholics know that we consider them as deprived of the ordinary means of salvation, however excellent their intentions.”

Wojtyla, preached universalism, venerated the koran, worshipped devils and did more to pervert people’s understanding of Christ and Catholicism than anyone bar Montini, and Bergoglio, and Vatican II.
–http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/sermonsallbytopic.html
–
Keep the Faith, assailed faithful, despite a world full of EMs.

A very wise man recently wrote to me:
“The biggest argument for evangelizing the Jews is the plain historical fact that the first thousand or so Christians were all evangelized Jews, as were the Apostles themselves. To say that Jews should not be evangelized,(like the man in the Vatican), is to say that the Church should never have begun evangelizing in the first place. The “pope” is basically telling Jesus to shut the hell up. If there’s a better definition of what it means to be an anti-Christ, I don’t know what it is.”
Shalom.
Michael F Poulin

A very wise man recently wrote to me:
“Most conservative Catholics are aware that all but one of the English bishops during Henry VIII’s time went along with Henry…. But these same Catholics miss the obvious conclusion, which is that Catholic bishops are not automatically reliable and that sometime lay Catholics will be forced to choose which ones to follow and which ones not to follow. “Trust your bishops” says that idiot Mark Shea, even though the record shows they are not always trustworthy. It is a case of ideology overruling common sense; wishful thinking overruling proper discernment. …Apostolic succession doesn’t solve every problem. … Neo-Catholics are willfully and habitually blind to reality.”
Michael F Poulin